Page 15 of 101 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 2016
  1. #281
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    The ACC tournament is a shadow of its former self. Dilution of teams and dilution of importance have taken their toll. The ACC office is not about to rotate the site on some equitable basis. It will set the venue based on the ability to sell tickets.


    sagegrouse
    Certainly, but I have no doubt they'd be able to sell tickets if the tournament were anywhere near kansas or texas.
    1200. DDMF.

  2. #282
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Certainly, but I have no doubt they'd be able to sell tickets if the tournament were anywhere near kansas or texas.
    Kansas, probably so. Texas might see a nominal sellout, but the games would be only partially attended.

  3. #283
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Kansas, probably so. Texas might see a nominal sellout, but the games would be only partially attended.
    not to mention, if the price to pay to get texas and kansas into your league was a smaller turnout for the basketball tournament every few years, I think any conference in the country would jump on that in an instant.
    1200. DDMF.

  4. #284
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    not to mention, if the price to pay to get texas and kansas into your league was a smaller turnout for the basketball tournament every few years, I think any conference in the country would jump on that in an instant.
    Kansas in Cameron, and Duke in Phog Allen, would be great.

    I'm not for expansion, but if it's coming . . . .

  5. #285
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Kansas in Cameron, and Duke in Phog Allen, would be great.

    I'm not for expansion, but if it's coming . . . .
    now the UNC game is special, but you'd effectively need to go back to the two tenting games a year...or the line for the kansas game would make it all the way down to edens.
    1200. DDMF.

  6. #286
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Florida State forming a committee to "explore options" for conference realignment.

    Of course, unless the Florida-Georgia-South Carolina bloc changes its mind those should be some awfully short meetings.

  7. #287
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil View Post
    What do you mean? Texas can't expel the little guys, they are already getting hurt by revenue sharing, what do they have to lose to complain, and loudly? That's why this "Texas as bully" argument is such weak sauce. If OU/NU/A&M are so concerned about the little guys, why have they voted for unequal revenue sharing? If the little guys are so offended, why did they vote for it? If this was a real issue, the schools would stand up for themselves. It's not, and like the LHN is being used to distract.
    Wanted to explain this. Texas can functionally expel everyone from the Big XII by choosing to leave the league themselves. The "little guys" agreed to unequal revenue sharing because the Big XII is the best deal any of them is likely to ever get, and a bad deal is better than no deal at all. The schools that are complaining are the ones that already have accepted offers or have standing offers to join other leagues.

  8. #288
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Wanted to explain this. Texas can functionally expel everyone from the Big XII by choosing to leave the league themselves. The "little guys" agreed to unequal revenue sharing because the Big XII is the best deal any of them is likely to ever get, and a bad deal is better than no deal at all. The schools that are complaining are the ones that already have accepted offers or have standing offers to join other leagues.
    Exactly.

    I'm really tired of hearing about how none of this is Texas' fault. The whole league was pretty stable until Texas started making eyes at the Big Ten and Pac10. Then, all of a sudden, it's supposed to be some sort of treason that NU and CU and A&M attempt to find a life raft out of a potentially disastrous situation? I feel really bad for Iowa State and Baylor, and maybe even KU, KSU and MU, but you can't blame the others for trying to survive after Texas created the whole situation of complete insecurity. Texas was the one, has been the one all along, who has had the power all along to make the B12 work, and their prevarication last year is what precipitated this whole silliness.

    Here's what I don't understand about the Texas-ACC talk. Now, no one denies UT is a peach. They'd bring you some revenue. They're great. But you're the ACC. You knew Texas was a snake when you picked them up. You think they won't kick the ACC to the curb if independence or the Pac-XX doesn't suddenly seem better? I don't know why any conference would deal with this school. They've already proven themselves capable of completely destabilizing an entire conference. They're literally the single last school I'd want to have to deal with if I'm a conference commissioner. No wonder A&M is trying to escape to a safe haven. So too OU.

    I didn't used to have any dog in the UT-A&M fight. Now, if they manage to preserve their rivalry, I'm rooting for A&M over Texas every year no matter what. OU over Texas too. With great power comes great responsibility. Texas wants all the power, and none of the responsibility.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  9. #289
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    Exactly.

    I'm really tired of hearing about how none of this is Texas' fault. The whole league was pretty stable until Texas started making eyes at the Big Ten and Pac10. Then, all of a sudden, it's supposed to be some sort of treason that NU and CU and A&M attempt to find a life raft out of a potentially disastrous situation? I feel really bad for Iowa State and Baylor, and maybe even KU, KSU and MU, but you can't blame the others for trying to survive after Texas created the whole situation of complete insecurity. Texas was the one, has been the one all along, who has had the power all along to make the B12 work, and their prevarication last year is what precipitated this whole silliness.

    Here's what I don't understand about the Texas-ACC talk. Now, no one denies UT is a peach. They'd bring you some revenue. They're great. But you're the ACC. You knew Texas was a snake when you picked them up. You think they won't kick the ACC to the curb if independence or the Pac-XX doesn't suddenly seem better? I don't know why any conference would deal with this school. They've already proven themselves capable of completely destabilizing an entire conference. They're literally the single last school I'd want to have to deal with if I'm a conference commissioner. No wonder A&M is trying to escape to a safe haven. So too OU.

    I didn't used to have any dog in the UT-A&M fight. Now, if they manage to preserve their rivalry, I'm rooting for A&M over Texas every year no matter what. OU over Texas too. With great power comes great responsibility. Texas wants all the power, and none of the responsibility.
    That first paragraph, specifically the second sentence, is false. Jim Delaney started talking expansions and reached out to Notre Dame and Texas. Mizzou (who is a natural fit for the Big Ten), then Nebraska (who has struggled not being allowed to take partial qualifiers as they had in the past) began looking at the Big Ten, then Texas and OU started weighing their options. Finally, Texas, A&M and OU kept the Big XII together last year with the understanding that it would be a long term deal. The LHN ended up being a lucrative deal for Texas and A&M freaked out, because they missed their shot to be part of it. A&M has been a fiscally mismanaged athletic department, and the SEC, while actually not more lucrative right now for A&M due to the exit fees they would have to pay, will be a boon to season tickets and donations (already has). I understand A&M's move to the SEC, but they'll try to sell you that they were lied to at the formation of the Big XII and that's false. They need cash.

    I do agree that Texas-ACC isn't a good fit and I hope that is not what happens.

    But a lot of this is misinformed as to what happened last year. This was NOT triggered by Texas. It began with Jim Delaney trying to get Notre Dame (and potentially Texas), and settling on Nebraska over Mizzou. Texas may be implicated because Jim Delaney made that statement that he was looking south. But Texas to the Big Ten last year, while discussed, was never a reality. Colorado jumped at the Pac XII because Baylor was positioning to cut them out of the group heading over there. That was a good move for them.

    In my mind, the only thing that is Texas' fault is (1) the LHN was more lucrative than their competitors imagined. Those same competitors that said it would never work. Which is it? and (2) I agree that Texas should probably share 1st and 2nd tier revenue rights, and I think they are open to that, even in a surviving Big XII, based on everything I've read.

    Yeah -- Texas could leave and the conference could fall apart, but the same can be said for OU if they do leave now. But the only REAL evidence of Texas possibly leaving was last summer with 5 other Big XII teams in tow. That was a done deal last year. Instead, they've tried to create a stable Big XII with OU, Tech, OSU and the others, all of which had committed to it before the Aggies' nonsense this summer.

  10. #290
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX

    Texas = Yankees = Lakers = ... Duke Basketball

    I'll just add this post from another board that explains much more eloquently than I can why some of this ish has been turned against Texas by other Big XII schools, masking the real reasons (many valid) why folks are leaving the Big XII. A lot of it sounds remarkably similar to what you hear others say about Duke basketball. Again, if you just want to be mad at the Jones', I understand, but when you look at the move of A&M for instance, in a deeper context, it doesn't as much sense, financially or competitively, other than to get out of the shadow of big brother. Bolded the important parts.

    But I can give you the basic story without looking up a thing. Texas has solid football culture, the largest student base in the nation and top-20-caliber law and business schools that churn out wealthy alumni. Thus, with competent management our athletic department can sell tickets, attract donations and sell its brand more successfully than any other school in the country. Those three financial advantages absolutely dwarf any extra money we make from TV, even with the LHN. The law of diminishing returns kicks in well below our revenue grade and we’ve already got every advantage that money can buy. To wit: last year’s athletic revenue was in the 150 mil range; football expenses, 25 mil. Our s**t is pimped out to the max.

    So money isn’t really the issue – or if it is, everyone should be equally pi**ed at Ohio State, Florida, UCLA and Alabama because they have similarly outsized revenues and the exact same accompanying advantages. Except a cable network branded with their logo…though you can bet that if Texas brings in a fistful of cash via LHN, other bigtime schools will find a way to follow the leader.

    I think the resentment sprouts from two main things: first, UT used its leverage to shape the initial competitive playing field in the Big 12, tightening rules on partial qualifiers and whatnot when the conference was made. NU and CU were kinda pi**ed by that, and as it happens, both programs fell off a cliff after UT arrived. Meanwhile over the same period A&M went from BCS contender to division also-ran. Texas had something to do with that (we beat those teams A LOT) but no one forced A&M to lose repeatedly to Baylor or Nebraska to Iowa State. Schools are projecting their failures onto us, as if walking disasters like Callahan, Franchione and Hawkins had nothing to do with it.

    Second, if you’re a big admin type and you want to jump to another conference on its own merits – stability, academics, prestige, a permanent seat on the Board of Regents, or any number of reasons that have nothing to do with UT – demonizing Texas has its benefits. If you’re NU brass and giving up an emotional ninety-year rivalry with OU, you want to give the fans a tangibly emotional reason to want out of the Big 12. Same with A&M or OU.

    And while UT’s been the big dog in the conference and made sure its rules comported to UT’s will, I don’t think UT’s pressed its advantage so hard in any area outside the LHN that one can classify it as “unfair” unless one believes that anything short of absolute parity is unfair. We’re the biggest school with the most paying fans. And if we don’t think it’s cool to give kids schollies who can’t pass a basic English literacy class or crack a 650 on the SAT, maybe our opinion should count for more than Nebraska’s. And if we think we should be paid 21 mil for TV rights while Iowa State only gets 17 mil, well, look at the TV ratings and tell me who’s paying the opportunity cost in that exchange.

    The LHN – with its one-school branding and its potential use as a recruiting tool – could be seen as “unfair” under a much more common notion of fairness in college sports: that financial advantages should only translate into things like nice stadiums and other doodads that you can put donor’s names on, but in terms of visibility schools within the same conference should have roughly the same rules to abide by, to “promote healthy competition”. So that’s something. Or at least it sounds like something, even if in real life it’s complete horses**t. The effect of TV arrangements pales in comparison to the inherent differences in brand appeal in CFB. If it didn’t, Notre Dame would have its pick of national recruits and wouldn’t boast a roster half-full of Boston-area townies every year.

    And for A&M, the problem of branding advantage doesn’t magically go away when they’re in the SEC; we’re still both recruiting Texas kids with the same amount of LHN access, and Florida already sells its third-tier rights to its regional Fox affiliate. And NU and CU split the Big 12 long before the LHN deal was reached.

    So none of those schools bailed due to UT’s unfair financial or competitive advantages. Those advantages exist, but nearly-identical financial and competitive imbalances await them at their destinations. They just resent the fact that UT’s the lone big dog in the Big 12 (the other conferences all have at least two or three, giving smaller schools room to triangulate) and for political reasons they all want to press the message that UT forced them into the move.

  11. #291
    Quote Originally Posted by ForkFondler View Post
    http://www.statesman.com/sports/long...s-1851020.html

    In particular:

    "The ACC is willing to talk about a unique conference format that has intrigued Texas. Instead of divisions, the conference could be divided into four pods, with each pod containing four teams, to aid scheduling."

    So, maybe the idea is 4 B12 teams (e.g. UT, TT, KU, and KSt) as the western pod, to go with a SE pod, an NC pod, and a NE pod.
    Texas Tech who ranks @ #160 in US News & World Reports academically would not be an ACC fit at all.

    Of ourse Texas @ 45 would be, and the next best B12 fit in Texas is Baylor @ #75 just after ACC's 10th berst VA Tech 4-way tie at #71.

    Ideally the other two from B12 would be Mizzou #90 and KU #101 (tied with FSU and NC St @ #101 as the ACC's lowest academically) but I suspect KU tied @ #101 and Kansas State who is tied @ #143 are a package deal that is very attractive from a Basketball perspective but not very attractive from a Football perspective.

    There are several better fits academically in BE starting with UCONN and Pitt tied @ #58 and Syracuse @ #62. In this scenario after the two Oklahoma teams bolt to P12, the B12 would be ripe for picking and BE would be a hostile takeover.

    West VA is not an ACC fit either, tied with Texas Tech and Louisville and others @ #160, and West VA also likely a target of SEC.

    So Baylor would make more sense than Texas Tech. If ACC can retain its current 12, that would get them to 14. Then to get to 16, either two more B12 or two BE, or three from one and one from the other, pros and cons to each.

  12. #292
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by ACCBBallFan View Post
    Texas Tech who ranks @ #160 in US News & World Reports academically would not be an ACC fit at all.

    Of ourse Texas @ 45 would be, and the next best B12 fit in Texas is Baylor @ #75 just after ACC's 10th berst VA Tech 4-way tie at #71.

    Ideally the other two from B12 would be Mizzou #90 and KU #101 (tied with FSU and NC St @ #101 as the ACC's lowest academically) but I suspect KU tied @ #101 and Kansas State who is tied @ #143 are a package deal that is very attractive from a Basketball perspective but not very attractive from a Football perspective.

    There are several better fits academically in BE starting with UCONN and Pitt tied @ #58 and Syracuse @ #62. In this scenario after the two Oklahoma teams bolt to P12, the B12 would be ripe for picking and BE would be a hostile takeover.

    West VA is not an ACC fit either, tied with Texas Tech and Louisville and others @ #160, and West VA also likely a target of SEC.

    So Baylor would make more sense than Texas Tech. If ACC can retain its current 12, that would get them to 14. Then to get to 16, either two more B12 or two BE, or three from one and one from the other, pros and cons to each.
    While still against the ACC picking up Big XII teams unless it has to, Texas Tech will be shooting up that list in the next few years. The state (unless Rick Perry's crazy U. of Phoenix educational schemes get there way) has committed to upgrading the academics at Tech and UH to tier 1 status. Still can't imagine Tech in the ACC for myriad reasons.

  13. #293
    Quote Originally Posted by ACCBBallFan View Post
    Ideally the other two from B12 would be Mizzou #90 and KU #101 (tied with FSU and NC St @ #101 as the ACC's lowest academically) but I suspect KU tied @ #101 and Kansas State who is tied @ #143 are a package deal that is very attractive from a Basketball perspective but not very attractive from a Football perspective.
    KU and KSU are not a package deal. Sure, the state government would prefer them to stay together if all else was equal, but nobody is blocking a KU to Pac## or ACC move. If an invite were to come, that is.

    Coupla other things...
    • Re-quoting my earlier message, KSU has been to 5 NCAA tournaments in the last 20 years. Three of those were 11 seeds or lower. Not sure how that boosts the quality of basketball in any league.
    • KU did win a BCS bowl 3 years ago. Football is down at the moment, but there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic. Especially if they can rid themselves of KSU.
    • KU and KSU academics suffer in rankings because they are required to admit all in-state graduates. A ton of them washout in their first semester, so they get dinged twice. The quality of academics and research and KU is actually pretty high (see: AAU membership). But of course I'm biased.

  14. #294
    http://collegefootball.rivals.com/co...sp?CID=1264807

    Granted it isn't the end all be all, but all of the Rivals analysts chose to leave Duke out. Granted, this seems to be purely from their personal preference and doesn't take into consideration the alliances these schools have. Would the 64 just be for football and everything else goes back to what it did a few years ago, pretty much leaving Duke to drop to FCS in football or would they have to create a conference with Georgetown, Nova, etc.

  15. #295
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by sporthenry View Post
    http://collegefootball.rivals.com/co...sp?CID=1264807

    Granted it isn't the end all be all, but all of the Rivals analysts chose to leave Duke out. Granted, this seems to be purely from their personal preference and doesn't take into consideration the alliances these schools have. Would the 64 just be for football and everything else goes back to what it did a few years ago, pretty much leaving Duke to drop to FCS in football or would they have to create a conference with Georgetown, Nova, etc.
    Their approach, if you can call it that, seems to take the 64 biggest football programs (including independents) and hope that they fit into 4 conferences somehow. I guess this makes sense if we're talking about complete secession from the NCAA, but it's really not relevant otherwise.

  16. #296
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana

    What does Kansas want?

    I wanted to approach this conference realignment issue from another direction: What does Kansas want? I don't ask the question because I think Kansas holds any power -- the consensus is that they hold no power at all -- but because the answer seems illustrative of the whole problem. Assuming, as we all should, that we are unable to go back in time and we stick with realistic options...

    My guesswork, in order of preference:

    1. Kansas wants a viable, automatic qualifying Big XII Conference with 12 full-time teams. Goodbye, Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas A&M. Hello, some combination of BYU, New Mexico, SMU, TCU, Louisville, or Memphis. The other 9 teams, including Texas and Oklahoma, stay put.

    2. Texas goes independent in football, but remains part of a Big Less-Than-XII Conference for all other sports. Kind of like what BYU is doing with the West Coast Conference. The Big Less-Than-XII Conference will probably lose its AQ status, but remains regionally relevant and keeps 8-9 full time schools, replacing Oklahoma and Oklahoma State if needed.

    3. The SEC pounces on Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State, becoming the first 16-team AQ conference. In the mad dash to follow, the Pac-12 picks up Kansas, which is among the best of what's left west of the Mississippi.

    4. The Pac-12 gets over its Longhorn Network hangup and picks up Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and a 4th Big XII school (Texas Tech or Missouri) to become the first 16-team AQ conference. In the mad dash to follow, the SEC raids the ACC, the ACC raids the Big East, and the Big Ten picks up Kansas among the leftovers.

    5. The ACC is last to act, and decides that Big XII remnants are preferable to smaller, non-BCS schools that are closer to its footprint.

    6. Kansas is unclaimed by any AQ conferences, and cannot create a sustainable conference with the other unclaimed schools in the region. At that point it can join an existing non-AQ conference (like the Mountain West), form a non-regional, non-AQ conference with unclaimed Big XII and Big East schools (like a beefier Conference USA), or go independent.

    I don't mention Kansas State because I really have no idea if they're part of a package deal, either by choice or by default. I can see Kansas leaving KSU behind, but not vice versa. Someone closer to the pulse of Jayhawk Nation might have more to say on all of this, but it's a start.

  17. #297
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by brevity View Post
    I wanted to approach this conference realignment issue from another direction: What does Kansas want? I don't ask the question because I think Kansas holds any power -- the consensus is that they hold no power at all -- but because the answer seems illustrative of the whole problem. Assuming, as we all should, that we are unable to go back in time and we stick with realistic options...
    I imagine one of three things will happen to KU. (1) OU decides to stick around and work on its own network and the Big XII stays together, (2) KU is part of a Texas package to the ACC or (3) UT goes to Pac XII with OU or independent, and KU gets picked up by Big East or ACC.

    If the Big East is willing to take TCU they will be waiting behind the bushes with flowers to come to the door for KU if the Big XII falls apart, hopefully (for Big East's sake) ahead of the ACC.

    I can't imagine a scenario where KU B-Ball is left out in the cold.

  18. #298
    Quote Originally Posted by brevity View Post
    I wanted to approach this conference realignment issue from another direction: What does Kansas want? I don't ask the question because I think Kansas holds any power -- the consensus is that they hold no power at all -- but because the answer seems illustrative of the whole problem. Assuming, as we all should, that we are unable to go back in time and we stick with realistic options...

    My guesswork, in order of preference:

    1. Kansas wants a viable, automatic qualifying Big XII Conference with 12 full-time teams. Goodbye, Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas A&M. Hello, some combination of BYU, New Mexico, SMU, TCU, Louisville, or Memphis. The other 9 teams, including Texas and Oklahoma, stay put.

    2. Texas goes independent in football, but remains part of a Big Less-Than-XII Conference for all other sports. Kind of like what BYU is doing with the West Coast Conference. The Big Less-Than-XII Conference will probably lose its AQ status, but remains regionally relevant and keeps 8-9 full time schools, replacing Oklahoma and Oklahoma State if needed.

    3. The SEC pounces on Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State, becoming the first 16-team AQ conference. In the mad dash to follow, the Pac-12 picks up Kansas, which is among the best of what's left west of the Mississippi.

    4. The Pac-12 gets over its Longhorn Network hangup and picks up Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and a 4th Big XII school (Texas Tech or Missouri) to become the first 16-team AQ conference. In the mad dash to follow, the SEC raids the ACC, the ACC raids the Big East, and the Big Ten picks up Kansas among the leftovers.

    5. The ACC is last to act, and decides that Big XII remnants are preferable to smaller, non-BCS schools that are closer to its footprint.

    6. Kansas is unclaimed by any AQ conferences, and cannot create a sustainable conference with the other unclaimed schools in the region. At that point it can join an existing non-AQ conference (like the Mountain West), form a non-regional, non-AQ conference with unclaimed Big XII and Big East schools (like a beefier Conference USA), or go independent.

    I don't mention Kansas State because I really have no idea if they're part of a package deal, either by choice or by default. I can see Kansas leaving KSU behind, but not vice versa. Someone closer to the pulse of Jayhawk Nation might have more to say on all of this, but it's a start.
    1. KU actually prefers a 10 team league, with full round-robins in both basketball and football. Would rather not have lost Nebraska, but could do without Tech/Baylor.

    2. KU wants nothing to do with a Big12 that does not include OU/OSU.

    3. This is probably the best realistic option available, Lawrence has more in common with the west coast than most think. Travel would be a nightmare at times.

    4. The Big10 is the best dream scenario, by far. Travel wouldn't be a big issue, Bill Self loves Chicago, good potential rivalries with Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, OSU, Michigan State. Plus an old one with Nebraska. You would think that OSU, Michigan, and Penn State would prefer to upgrade basketball, rather than bring in another football powerhouse (Texas). This won't happen for a variety of reasons, mostly to do with the small population in Kansas and KC, plus no national football following.

    5. Would love this, but Roy would move heaven-and-earth to avoid playing a game in AFH as the opposing coach. I honestly think he would use his influences in ACC leadership to torpedo the idea.

    6. It's been rumored that KU has a conditional invite to the BigEast on the table already, if the Big12 falls. That's the worst option, but at least it's not the Mountain West.

    6b. KU would leave KSU behind in a heartbeat.

  19. #299
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by TexHawk View Post
    5. Would love this, but Roy would move heaven-and-earth to avoid playing a game in AFH as the opposing coach. I honestly think he would use his influences in ACC leadership to torpedo the idea.
    I think the coaches, even a Coach K, will have very little say in realignment matters. It's pretty much all Presidents, ADs, Regents/Trustees and big donors. So I don't think you'd have much to worry about from Roy if something like the ACC came to pass as an option for KU.

    If the Big XII collapses, even without UT, I could see the ACC making a preemptive strike on KU ahead of the Big East (although not sure about K-State)

  20. #300
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil View Post
    I think the coaches, even a Coach K, will have very little say in realignment matters. It's pretty much all Presidents, ADs, Regents/Trustees and big donors. So I don't think you'd have much to worry about from Roy if something like the ACC came to pass as an option for KU.

    If the Big XII collapses, even without UT, I could see the ACC making a preemptive strike on KU ahead of the Big East (although not sure about K-State)
    Airowe tweeted a link to an article on Orangebloods.com in which the writer talked Texas moving to the ACC being seriously considered and gives a number of reasons of why the move to the ACC makes sense and is viable. The writer went on to say that apparently Texas was trying to convince OU to go east with them to the ACC. I also heard today on Yahoosports radio that OU was considering other options outside of just the PAC-12.
    I don't know how much truth there is to any of this but if the ACC could bring in Texas, OU and Kansas, I think that would be a win-win in both football and basketball for the ACC. Alternatively, if OU with Okla St in tow is deadset on going to the PAC-12 and Texas is truly serious about going to the ACC if the Big 12 couldn't be saved, a combination of Texas, Kansas, Syracuse and UConn would solidify the ACC as well. And if a school like MD decides to leave for the ACC or Big 10, replacing them with Pitt would be a nice pickup as well.

    A-Tex Devil, you seem well connected and knowledgeable with regards to all things Texas. I was wondering if you've heard whether or not any of this was true' and if the Texas to the ACC is really picking up steam or is it just Texas using the ACCas leverage to sweeten a possible deal with the PAC-12 or Big-10.
    Last edited by Class of '94; 09-14-2011 at 05:57 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Baseball Realignment
    By SoCalDukeFan in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-06-2011, 11:36 PM
  2. Big East Realignment
    By johnb in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-23-2011, 09:29 PM
  3. The Kyrie Irving Toe Vigil
    By diveonthefloor in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1507
    Last Post: 02-05-2011, 06:25 PM
  4. NCAA Conference Realignment
    By A-Tex Devil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 05:16 PM
  5. Sentinel: 5 Years After Realignment: Are Schools Better Off?
    By gotham devil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-04-2008, 11:28 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •